ashbury

Galvis profiles an awful lot like Greg Gagne at SS*, to me. I've overlooked him, but a good glove with a little pop in the bat could be worth bringing on board. For equal money I'd probably take him over Marwin**, and it's sounding like the money wouldn't even be equal. * Which is a compliment ** For those interested in positional flexibility, Freddy has played some 2B, and has even logged some innings in the outfield, so he'd come up to speed quickly IMO and would do fine if you needed to plug him in somewhere. As the team's best SS, that wouldn't happen very often, until someone better comes along that is.

OK, so maybe it removes them from competition for some righty.

Will it? Seems like it removes the Dodgers from being in that competition for some other lefty.

Even that scenario could be OK, if we got someone super productive in return.

I'm going to go with an Andy Kaufman reference instead, just as soon as I can think up a good one.

All 30 teams in the post-season was enough. Sorry, though, the sarcasm I laid on was too thick.

And instead of 7-game series, make each series a month long, starting in May; five series should crown a champion. Because the regular season would have about as much meaning as Spring Training, under this plan. Part of what I like about baseball is that you need one kind of team for the rigors of the long season, and then another kind of team for the intensity of short series. This proposal would homogenize things down more than I'd want. You would gear up your roster for the short series style, and not worry about whether it let you do well in the regular season. You might muddle along with a lot of bullpen games, for example.

The league split is interesting - the aggregate version I've seen looks similar if you imaging blending the two. That certainly changes the thinking, although there is still something to be said for handing over the relatively easier second inning to the starter, who sometimes doesn't begin the game with complete command. I've said elsewhere that a stud starter should not require an Opener. It seems like a decent strategy for breaking a rookie starter into the majors without relegating him to bullpen mopup (or short) duty.

How about this for real data: more runs are scored in the first inning than in any other. Why not apply one of your good bullpen arms to try to address that, and then let the long-haul pitcher settle in for the innings which follow? If all goes well, bring in another good arm when the going gets tough again late in the game. And if things don't go perfectly, that's baseball. The manager still has to manage. But you can try to put your players in a position to succeed.

FTFY.

Derek Shelton, I think? I'm not a subscriber, but the first paragraphs they show me here seem to confirm my recollection: https://theathletic.com/559921/2018/10/01/joe-mauer-twins-catcher-finale-retirement-story/

Bittersweet moment. Best of luck, Joe.

I believe Buxton's eyesight is damaged by repeated concussions. It's what I chalk up his poor pitch recognition to. So I am less willing to toss aside a bad season as an outlier - it may be how he is, going forward. OTOH concussion damage often spontaneously heals itself after many months. It's so unpredictable. If my medically unqualified opinion holds water, he's worth keeping, even two more years, as a bounceback candidate. But I'm not willing to give him a multi-year extension at this time - a short year from now such a contract may look like Ricky Nolasco's or Phil Hughes's.

FTFY.

For early 2019? I have.

Depends on the pitcher and why this strategy is being considered. If he's got a track record of getting in trouble when facing the top of the lineup the third time, then sparing him those first few batters might let you get an extra inning out of him, compared to what you've been getting until now, not less. / edit - I failed to notice there was a new page and Chief had already made the point sufficiently. My bad.

That's fair, and I think the solution to that is not by hating strategy but by MLB changing the nature of the game in small ways. I want a 10% less juiced ball, which would reduce the reward for swinging from the heels no matter the count. The mound is low but could be lowered still. I could go for a slightly smaller strike zone. None of these changes would destroy the integrity of the game or our relationship to the history of the game, but could lead to a more entertaining game going forward, if you want baserunners and action instead of strikeouts and walks.

Chris Davis has a pretty strong claim in the AL, among players with 502 or more PA. That tasty .168 BA was supplemented by some walks and power, but yeesh. And he didn't provide much defensive value to compensate. It's closer in the NL, but Billy Hamilton had such a poor year at the plate for Cincy that I'm not sure his glove made up for it enough.

I haven't done a plan yet, in part because I am discouraged about nearly all the possibilities I have looked into. (Our FO doesn't have that luxury of course!) But, I've stated elsewhere that I'm not enthused in the slightest about your Mr. Popular. Likewise, the slate of relievers isn't something I'm advocating. So you're replying to something else than I posted. We can't know what the conditions will be like next July. Even if low-probability, there is some chance that a successful young core will emerge where we'd be glad if we had acquired some additional high-end veteran talent when we had the chance. I don't see Greinke as low-risk, but Arizona has borne a lot of the risk already and he hasn't dropped off the cliff, and if they want to shed some salary he seems like a good target - in hopes they will cover $10M a year, leaving $25M, I'm not sure exactly where that can negotiation can go. Let's just say that I see nearly as much risk in Marwin, or in a lengthy Buxton extension that some propose, as Greinke. So why not aim high. You could fritter away the $25M or $35M I target for Greinke, on a group of lesser talents adding up to the same amount, and the risks for them will hardly be non-zero, plus taking up more 25-man spots.

The sequencing is why any strategy has limited impact on actual wins. I still feel that confronting the best batters in your opponent's lineup, which generally means the top of the order, with the arms most likely to get them out the most often, will pay off more often than it hurts you. The Opener strategy is aimed toward doing that IMO.

I hope the stress caused by the silent 's' isn't the only reason you're glad for the departure of Matt Belisle.

Many years I'd agree with you, but I don't think 2019 is such a season. 2 WAR is pretty close to the definition of "average major leaguer". If that's all you're aiming for, and you don't have some superior players already on the roster, you're not really contending, you're just average. Business analytics people at airlines and oil firms and forestry companies understand that when you have a constrained system, it may be difficult to anticipate exactly which constraints will be binding and which will be slack. Learning which, will tell you how to proceed with your strategic planning. On a baseball team, among the most crucial constraints are the 25-man roster (you can't win a pennant by using 100 cheap 1-WAR players), the 40-man roster (ditto), and your budget. Right now, we have very little likelihood of exceeding the budget until we sign some new players. Given a lot of potentially average players on board right now, at low cost, it makes sense to sign a few high-WAR potential players, even if the price-performance isn't good. If you're in the habit of assuming that budget will always be the binding constraint at the very outset, you'll miss opportunities. There's a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. With all our cost-efficient youngsters, I want to focus on effectiveness, for the few guys we do sign. I don't know right now that $35M for 3+ WAR isn't actually a pretty good deal for this present situation, unless you have a better way to acquire 3+ WAR.